Parents Arrested Over Obese 11-Year-Old Son

This is third time... i said before its sad it came to this and we dont know what all they tried with this family and i doubt that decision they made
was made lightly.. do i need to tell that fourth time?

I did read that, the reason why im not commenting is that i have not seen that change in BMI where i come from, i have kept my BMI same over the years
as my weight in kgs. So what you got there might not be the same here.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
That has happened where you are. My classification is still the same in here my weight was normal then and is normal now which is 18.3
Cant give you a opinion of what was overweighted or obese as those were not in my intrest when checked. But i can give you another possibly weird
observation. I used to find clothes in my size `S` easily years ago but now the clothes which are size `S` are way too big for me... and im still
same weight and height so what is going on with cloths sizes..

That is a fashion industry thing. People were actually shorter and smaller a few decades ago. A the population gained height and bone mass due to
better nutrition, they fashion industry started changing what was considered average for that size.

They also changed the number on larger sizes so that woman wouldn't be put off by buying a size 16 and a size 18.

The reason why I posted that document was to show how the obesity "epidimic" was actually created. When they changed the BMI classifications - 97
million americans suddenly went from being normal wieght to being overwieght without having gained a lbs.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The reason why I posted that document was to show how the obesity "epidimic" was actually created. When they changed the BMI classifications - 97
million americans suddenly went from being normal wieght to being overwieght without having gained a lbs.

I don't see the relevance of The US National Institutes of Health redefining obesity (as a BMI of 30+ back in 1998) to this topic.
All the NIH really did was fall into line with the existing definition of obesity which has been consistent in Europe during the many years prior to
1998. Aside from obvious exceptions such as fit bodybuilders etc, a BMI of 30+ is indicative of an unhealthy obese condition in the majority of
cases.

Regarding the child in the OP, his BMI of 39.7 places him in the 99th percentile. This means that in a room of a 100 kids the same age and gender as
him, on average he has more body fat than at least 99 of them. That is extreme and one would not need to be a medical doctor to see this obvious
health issue.

We do not know the details of this case, how cooperative the parents were, if they made any efforts to make changes which have regard for their childs
health or not, etc, so condemning the decision to arrest the parents is based on speculation alone. I understand your knee-jerk reaction regarding
primacy of parents and the 'horrors' of being arrested, but without knowing the details you cannot know that the decision was wrong, morally or
otherwise.

That said, I believe that circumstances can potentially exist where it could be considered appropriate for the state to arrest and investigate parents
who appear to be carrying out a course of action which is likely to have a damaging effect on the health of their child.

How on earth you can find any possible defence for parents who provide a lifestyle which leads to a 5'1" eleven year old weighing 210 pounds is beyond
me, and frankly rather shortsighted in my opinion.

However, I am concerned that this is a whole new intrusion on private family life. Of course its an extreme case but that how precedences are
established. Unfortunately, the government never sets limits in the law (for instance: no intervention if BMI is less than say 35). Then we have
situations where the government feels the need to intervene as soon as a child exceeds the average.

However, I am concerned that this is a whole new intrusion on private family life. Of course its an extreme case but that how precedences are
established. Unfortunately, the government never sets limits in the law (for instance: no intervention if BMI is less than say 35). Then we have
situations where the government feels the need to intervene as soon as a child exceeds the average.

I understand your concern, but personally, as a UK citizen, I don't see this as anything other than an extremely rare situation where 'the
authorities' are struggling to find the right path for this poor child and it's parents.
I also have issues with government overstepping the mark, of course it is something to keep an eye on, but it is a delicate balancing act with some
dysfunctional families.

I spent over 15 years working in various arms of UK welfare, central government, local government social services, and also the charitable sector. I
even used to sign off decisions (which I had made) but on behalf of the secretary of state, with no appeal option available to the person concerned.
Government is only as 'fair' as the people who administer it, but I know one thing, when it comes to taking children into care it really is the very
last option for under staffed and under funded 'safeguarding children' teams.

I agree that oppressive use of arrest tactics is something which is not desirable for any society, but if I was forced to make a call I would bet all
my money that all the people involved in this case made their decisions with the best intentions for the child, not as tyranical overlords.

Our system is not perfect and there is plenty of shady unnofficial stuff that goes on in UK 'administration' which I've been involved in myself.
Information sharing by the Civil Service to the police for example is only 'legal' if there is serious risk of harm to an individual or the public,
but 'off the record' exchanges of information happened regularly when local police wanted to find some low-level scumbag who was wanted for theft or
whatever. Not legal at all, but morally defensible.

On an off-topic note, but relevant and supportive to your wider distrust of 'authority', I remember earning £££thousands in weekend overtime shifts
in the 90's during the 6 months prior to the UK 'formally' signing up to the European freedom of information act. The government at the time declared
every citizen would have access to their records/files to see what was written about them. Tony Blair, the then prime minister, explained that
government departments needed time to set the process in motion - that was just a crock of lies as the reason for the delay was tens of thousands of
'cleared' civil servants needed to go through every file and clean them up to a solely factual/impartial standard.

I share equal distrust of authority with you, but in this case of an eleven year old weighing 210 pounds at 5'1" I am drawn to the belief that
everyone working on that case had the intentions of the child in mind and rightly or wrongly a decision was made that an arrest/intervention could be
useful to finding a solution.
Again though, it is a child protection case and we will never know the details due to strict rules regarding anonymity of the child and its family, so
anything we on ATS think about it is always going to be pure conjecture.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.